protecting workplace, NC HB 650

Fishing_Cabin · November 12, 2011, 11:04 PM

Since the passage of NC HB 650, I would like to discuss a few things here, providing the mods agree.

There was a shooting over in Wilkes county NC that has tended to divide a few issues as far as public opinion from reading the comments. The details may be viewed on the local news website http://www.wxii12.com/news/29692849/detail.html which you can read the comments for yourself, as well as other local internet forums. NC HB650 states, as follows,

" SECTION 1. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding the following new sections to read:

"§ 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. – A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
(2) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(3) Motor vehicle. – As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23).
(4) Workplace. – A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

What I would like to discuss is this...

Where does one draw a line between buying security, and standing up for your own life and income/business? i.e. locked door, alarm system, security camera, unarmed security gaurds, armed security gaurds, owner staying at the business armed, etc??? If the business is occupied, and it is broken in to, I, personally would assume those breaking in would have violence on their mind.

hermannr · November 13, 2011, 01:28 AM

The individuals that entered crossed the line and paid the price. It is that simple. They had no business breaking into that man's place business.

One of the reasons that crime goes down when laws like NC's are passed is that the "potential cost" to the BG goes up to an unexceptable level for many criminals. That is, it could cost them their life rather than just a few years in jail.

Have you ever heard of the Sullivan act? If not, read this: http://cavalierknight.com/pages/sullivan.act.html

The potential cost of crime went down, and crime, like any other commodity, went up.

**Aguila Blanca** · November 13, 2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishing Cabin

Where does one draw a line between buying security, and standing up for your own life and income/business? i.e. locked door, alarm system, security camera, unarmed security gaurds, armed security gaurds, owner staying at the business armed, etc??? If the business is occupied, and it is broken in to, I, personally would assume those breaking in would have violence on their mind.

It doesn't really matter, does it? Breaking in is clearly an unlawful entry, and the law specifically stipulates that in the event of an unlawful entry the law presumes that an occupant is in fear of a violent assault and is justified in using deadly force for self defense.

Since the law assumes the perpetrator has violense in mind, it doesn't really matter whether or not the lawful occupants believe that way or not. Either way, they are allowed to defend themselves.

Fishing_Cabin · November 13, 2011, 04:26 PM

Thanks for the replies hermannr and Aguila Blanca... Aguila, I think what got me wondering was that by going by the old version of the law, where the burden of proof was on the shooter to prove he was in fear of his life, to now with the new law, where the burden of proof is placed on to the individual breaking-in.

Having grown up in a family business (now closed), I was perplexed by the wide range of responses following the break-ins that happened over so often. Only a couple of times over the years was someone ever charged. One time I even stumbled upon a person inside the fence that I still think to this day was going to break-in, when I came back to the office late to drop a truck off. Short scuffle happened and the guy ran off, though I was criticized then by the local police then, for even being there after the family business had closed for the evening to drop off the truck.

C0untZer0 · November 13, 2011, 10:40 PM

I'm not sure if this was written to cover someone in a car who shoots an assailant attempting to break into the car .

It's not clear that you have to be in the car to be legally justified in shooting someone breaking into your car.

November 12, 2011, 11:04 PM	#1
Fishing_Cabin Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Posts: 720	protecting workplace, NC HB 650 Since the passage of NC HB 650, I would like to discuss a few things here, providing the mods agree. There was a shooting over in Wilkes county NC that has tended to divide a few issues as far as public opinion from reading the comments. The details may be viewed on the local news website http://www.wxii12.com/news/29692849/detail.html which you can read the comments for yourself, as well as other local internet forums. NC HB650 states, as follows, " SECTION 1. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding the following new sections to read: "§ 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm. (a) The following definitions apply in this section: (1) Home. – A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence. (2) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer. (3) Motor vehicle. – As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23). (4) Workplace. – A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes. (b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply: (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace. (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances: (1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person. (2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used. (3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." What I would like to discuss is this... Where does one draw a line between buying security, and standing up for your own life and income/business? i.e. locked door, alarm system, security camera, unarmed security gaurds, armed security gaurds, owner staying at the business armed, etc??? If the business is occupied, and it is broken in to, I, personally would assume those breaking in would have violence on their mind. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; November 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM.

November 13, 2011, 01:28 AM	#2
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	The individuals that entered crossed the line and paid the price. It is that simple. They had no business breaking into that man's place business. One of the reasons that crime goes down when laws like NC's are passed is that the "potential cost" to the BG goes up to an unexceptable level for many criminals. That is, it could cost them their life rather than just a few years in jail. Have you ever heard of the Sullivan act? If not, read this: http://cavalierknight.com/pages/sullivan.act.html The potential cost of crime went down, and crime, like any other commodity, went up.

November 13, 2011, 04:26 PM	#4
Fishing_Cabin Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Posts: 720	Thanks for the replies hermannr and Aguila Blanca... Aguila, I think what got me wondering was that by going by the old version of the law, where the burden of proof was on the shooter to prove he was in fear of his life, to now with the new law, where the burden of proof is placed on to the individual breaking-in. Having grown up in a family business (now closed), I was perplexed by the wide range of responses following the break-ins that happened over so often. Only a couple of times over the years was someone ever charged. One time I even stumbled upon a person inside the fence that I still think to this day was going to break-in, when I came back to the office late to drop a truck off. Short scuffle happened and the guy ran off, though I was criticized then by the local police then, for even being there after the family business had closed for the evening to drop off the truck.

November 13, 2011, 10:40 PM	#5
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I'm not sure if this was written to cover someone in a car who shoots an assailant attempting to break into the car . It's not clear that you have to be in the car to be legally justified in shooting someone breaking into your car.